DG6 Discussion -- what NEEDS to change for you to stay in the game?

Yes, and we wouldn't be able to feed the kids MacDonald's hamburgers quick enough once school started. And that's just money down the drain.... :mischief:

The point they're trying to make CT, that you don't want to hear is that it was a pivitol point in the Demogame's history, Constitution-wise. It had all to do with the quality of the game and nothing to do with the time schedule.

But of course, this is a major problem in the world today, as I'm sure you all know. Who cares if it's the way it should be or even worth a damn. As long as we can sell it to the kids, that's what counts. Right?
 
Ok, two comments on the issue of the game starting before the rules are in place.

First, at the beginning of DG5 we had good momentum going before one of the main contributors and driving forces went on vacation, and when that person returned it was to find that the budding concensus on rules had been replaced with total chaos. The people who perpetrated the chaos are at fault there. You know who you are, and I'd appreciate it if you would concede points you're going to lose a little faster, for the good of all. I will pledge to give up losing causes as soon as it is apparent that the majority is against me and not likely to budge. We wasted weeks on senseless arguments over points which weren't going to change.

Second, we are way too immersed in the wording of the law and not on the meaning those words convey. We're too worried about the letter of the law and we ignore the spirit of the law. Take the DG4T1 judicial elections, which got into trouble because the letter of the law didn't add up. It should have been handled by following the least disruptive and most common sense path, instead of resulting in the DG equivalent of a civil war. The most damaging events are when we get a crusader who takes a literally correct but absurd reading of the law, and then will not yield to the less literal but totally common sense answer.

So how does this boil down to a what needs to change? We need a healthy dose of common sense. We can't be offended by laws which conflict with each other as written when they don't conflict under common sense. We need rules which are written in plain language. We need to make rules easy to change, so there is less pressure to make them perfect in the first place. We need people who admit mistakes and move on, and we need people who forgive mistakes and don't hold grudges.

Another thing we need is for complaints to be turned into actions.
 
@Cyc - I was talking about including as many people as possible. You know how everyone's always complaining that no one participates? that's because they're all at school/work/running the kids around. They have more time in the summer, and we nearly wasted it. Maybe I should get Thunderfall in here (and this would be the 4th time I mentioned it -- I feel like talking to a bunch of kids who won't listen.). Even TF said that 3 months was too much. You may not realize it, but all of that legal bickering in DG4, and prolonged bickering between games is what drove people away. I know because I took a survey (another thing you don't seem to want to listen to).

So, let's just set up threads on the main points of the game, discuss and vote. It really shouldn't be that hard. Another thing is, it wasn't just me who jump-started the game, but eyrei, Rik and I collectively.

In fact, I think I'll start the rules discussions once the game finishes up this Sunday.
 
Chieftess said:
In fact, I think I'll start the rules discussions once the game finishes up this Sunday.

No offense but it would be better if one of us did that. I was thinking of maybe today or tomorrow. Besides, what do you think we've already been doing? There is already a lot of citizen input on rules for the next game, and we've done it in a way which avoided talking about the specific legal language, so the information is much more pure than it would have been.

We do need a mod to perform a service for us though, and that is to advertize so that people know the discussions are going on.

I don't wany anyone to kill me (figuratively) for mentioning a date, but we would only have 2 weeks to February which is not enough time to ratify rules, and we will not start before rules are ratified, so we're talking March.
 
CT - I knew exactly what you meant. But probably not the other way around. And I remember your poll(s). I remember the comments made and who made them. I know who left because the movement of "who needs rules/laws" didn't fly. And I agree with DS. Someone like you, who doesn't like discussion on laws shouldn't be putting up threads about discussing laws. DS has started this, let him finish it.

DS - March. :) Good luck! Just kidding, most of the under-pinnings have been tried and tested, so putting something together should be too bad.
 
Top Bottom